Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

The only problem with this theory is why would they cast Benicio Del Toro in the role (originally)? Unless that was also a huge planned misdirection.

Is there any reason why Benicio Del Toro couldn't have played Robert April? As far as I know the character was conjectural anyway, so him appearing in this film would actually be his first canon appearance wouldn't it?

Captain April Vs Captain Kirk. Nice... This or Khan would be quite cool. It does seem a bit too obvious to leave a piece of concept art lying there with a Villain's name on it. I mean, why not just put Harrison's Gun on that piece of concept art if the Character is going to remain as Harrison till a later reveal.
Maybe April owned or invented that gun but it was taken by Cumberbatche's character from a museum or lab.

Good show JJ Abrams. This kind of speculation is frustrating yet a lot of fun.

__________________
"It's not that you can see the strings, it's that 40 years later you're still looking at them." - Steven Moffat
"This movie was big. Imagine how big it could have been with me in it?" William Shatner

I'm having a hard time buying the April theory. I think it's more likely the piece of concept art was a disinformation plant.

Even with the changes to the timeline, the only commonality between Cumberbatch and what little has been established or even conjectured about April is that he's British. Otherwise he's the wrong age, has a totally different history, different personality, different motivations, different everything. Certainly they could still call him Robert April (presumably after revealing that the name John Harrison is an alias) but to do so would be virtually meaningless. They might as well call him Cyrano Jones or Harry Mudd for all the relevance it has.

Then again, these are the same people who applied the name Delta Vega to a completely different planet just to give a shout-out to the relatively few people who would recognize it, so who knows?

Could even be another April altogether. Bob, Jr. Or, as has been noted, it's something to do with April production dates.

I lean more now toward Khan than I did three days ago - that's the other part of McWeeny's speculation, which I suspect is more grounded in what he knows than the "April" part (he both disclaims less of his Khan theory, and makes less of a big deal about it).

I must grant McWeeny's point that Khan is just about the only Trek character, villain or otherwise, outside of the Enterprise crew that the average audience member out there is likely to recognize. Ergo, if you want to do a villain that is meaningful to the Star Trek universe and get the maximum mileage out of him, Khan makes the most sense from a purely practical point of view.